Justice Sandra Day O'Connor spoke at a symposium at Georgetown Law today, revealing a strong dislike for the High Court's Citizens United vs. FEC decision.

O'Connor stepped down in 2006 and has spent the last few years highlighting the detrimental effects of judicial campaigns.

According to the Washington Post, she explained during her remarks that, "increasingly expensive and negative campaigns for judicial office erode both the impartiality of the judiciary and the public perception of them."

"It has the effect of turning judges into the politically elected figures in arms races, if you will, by people with the means to support them...And what the framework of our Constitution tried to achieve when they wrote that Constitution back in the 1700s was an independent federal judiciary."

She also worried about the power of special interests:

"We've seen massive problems now with the election of state court judges from special interest groups that want to affect the election...That was the reason why we went to elections in the first place, to get rid of special interests. But now they've come back with money, and so we have to re-examine again how we need to fix that."

Short of outright criticism, O'Connor pointedly referred to the ruling of McConnell vs. FEC in 2003 that she authored with Justice Stevens. The key quote in that ruling:

"Many years ago, we observed that '[t]o say that Congress is without power to pass appropriate legislation to safeguard...an election from the improper use of money to influence the result is to deny the nation in a vital particular the power of self protection.'...Money, like water, will always find an outlet."

O'Connor isn't the first big voice to come out against the ruling, but her comments are at least a reason for a "what could have been" reflection. Had O'Connor stayed on the bench instead of being replaced by Justice Alito, last week's majority would have likely swayed the other way.